Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other Brand: New Analysis - FuelArc News
fuelarc.com
Among motorcyclists, there is a persistent rumor that Teslas are dangerous to ride around in traffic. Whether it’s their silent electric drivetrain, extreme acceleration, or self-driving technology supposedly failing to see motorcycles, every biker seems to know someone who’s had a close call with a Tesla. Our new analysis of data from the NHTSA on […]

TL;DR: Self-Driving Teslas Rear-End Motorcyclists, Killing at Least 5

Brevity is the spirit of wit, and I am just not that witty. This is a long article, here is the gist of it:

  • The NHTSA’s self-driving crash data reveals that Tesla’s self-driving technology is, by far, the most dangerous for motorcyclists, with five fatal crashes that we know of.
  • This issue is unique to Tesla. Other self-driving manufacturers have logged zero motorcycle fatalities with the NHTSA in the same time frame.
  • The crashes are overwhelmingly Teslas rear-ending motorcyclists.

Read our full analysis as we go case-by-case and connect the heavily redacted government data to news reports and police documents.

Oh, and read our thoughts about what this means for the robotaxi launch that is slated for Austin in less than 60 days.

  • br3d@lemmy.worldEnglish
    91·
    2 days ago

    There’s at least two steps before those three:

    -1. Society has been built around the needs of the auto industry, locking people into car dependency

    1. A legal system exists in which the people who build, sell and drive cars are not meaningfully liable when the car hurts somebody
    • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
      63·
      2 days ago
      1. A legal system exists in which the people who build, sell and drive cars are not meaningfully liable when the car hurts somebody

      That’s a good thing, because the alternative would be flipping the notion of property rights on its head. Making the owner not responsible for his property would be used to justify stripping him of his right to modify it.

      You’re absolutely right about point -1 though.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        build, sell and drive

        You two don’t seem to strongly disagree. The driver is liable but should then sue the builder/seller for “self driving” fraud.

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 day ago

          Maybe, if that two-step determination of liability is really what the parent commenter had in mind.

          I’m not so sure he’d agree with my proposed way of resolving the dispute over liability, which would be to legally require that all self-driving systems (and software running on the car in general) be forced to be Free Software and put it squarely and completely within the control of the vehicle owner.

            • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              1 day ago

              I mean, maybe, but previously when I’ve said that it’s typically gone over like a lead balloon. Even in tech forums, a lot of people have drunk the kool-aid that it’s somehow suddenly too dangerous to allow owners to control their property just because software is involved.